Why atheism is a belief.

[goodcake]

Ahh yes the rammstein kid. Unless you can incorporate insults into your argument, cunt, I believe they're not tolerated.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How ungodly of you.

[goodcake]

It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

Not all atheists try to prove that there isn't a god...however we equate god to "something which fulfils no purpose or function" because god serves no more purpose. You might say "yeah god does serve a purpose because he lays down moral guidelines, or whatever", but equally I could say "yeah so santa serves a purpose, he makes christmas magical and gives kids presents".

Yes I know all atheists don't believe the same thing. It seems that this is the most important tenent of atheism. Not all of a type of any kind of person believes exactly the same, there tends to be major or minor variations. It seems a moot point, but one which must be constantly made.


The difference is that we know that Santa does not buy presents, as all presents given to a child can be accounted for (i.e. who gave them which present). If there were presents which could not be accounted for this would provide the same level of the unknown as god presents us with. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges, unless you know that a god does not exist with the same level of certainty that santa does not exist. It's a bad anaology which makes no point and serves to reenforce a conclusion already made rather than actually convincing anyone.

You are failing to understand that atheists don't believe in god like they don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy, there really isn't any difference. The only difference is that everybody stops believing in santa and the tooth fairy, but some people continue to believe in god into adulthood.

I understand that. But this only highlights your conclusion. Tell me why you don't believe in a god, what evidence is present to discount it? Do you have a validated alternative which can remove the requirement for a creator? It's very simple to negate a santa or tooth fairy through cause and effect. If you're going to say "there really isn't any difference" you should be able to account for everything which a god may have created. Otherwise your statement is subjective and unjustified.

If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

The whole point of you can't disprove a leprechaun/unicorn/fairy argument is to show the theist (when he inevitably says "well you can't DISPROVE god") that you can't disprove any number of made up things.

Yes I understand this as well and as I've said the leprechaun does not account for anything which is unknown, so why invoke something unrequired to attempt to illustrate your point, when it doesn't? If you have proof to show a god is not required, then use it. Otherwise your position simply becomes one of wishful thinking.

I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

Many atheists equate fairies with god because they consider them equally likely to be fiction.

Yes I knw what they consider them to be. But their considerations hold no value, unless you can justify what you believe to be true. Surely there's more to it than this?

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

Please give a valid reason why there needs to be an alternative to god?

That seems an odd question. If there is only one option, no alternatives are required.
Existence was either created (or the indreict product of) or uncreated. If created, then there is a creator. If uncreated everything is pure chance/random/eternal.

Until the eternal or chance can be proven to be a valid option as opposed to just an option, the requirement for a god cannot be removed. Conversely, on the incredibly low chance that god appears and is 'proven' to exist, this would remove the requirement for alternatives.

I have no problem with there being nothing out there in place of god, and nothing does not need validation because nothing has no properties and is not anything.

Nothing does not cause existence, nor does nothing entail eternity. You can have no problem with it, that's fine as a personal choice. But you need to rationalise it to others if you want it to be understandable or worthwhile. Just removing god on the basis of leprechauns is frail position to hold.

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

Our position is absolutely validated at every turn. Simple fact is, we don't believe because we have not been given sufficient evidence. That is reasonable and valid.

So your base assumption of knowing everthing is a valid one?

---

How ungodly of you.

Let's accuse anyone who is not an atheist to be a theist. The classic and predictable retort.

[Norfolk And Chance]

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

Wait what!? You have evidence Thor doesn't create lightening! WELL PLEASE SHARE MOTHERFUCKER!

Actually, that's a great point. Though we know what lightning is, how it happens, does this mean it is proven that hor isn't behind it all? Seeing as though gods apparantly take on such an illusionary, non empirical state, how can we know it wasn't thor...

It's like the old god healed my sick relative story - no the surgeon did - no it was god, he gave the surgeon the skills.

---

It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

Not all atheists try to prove that there isn't a god...however we equate god to "something which fulfils no purpose or function" because god serves no more purpose. You might say "yeah god does serve a purpose because he lays down moral guidelines, or whatever", but equally I could say "yeah so santa serves a purpose, he makes christmas magical and gives kids presents".

Yes I know all atheists don't believe the same thing. It seems that this is the most important tenent of atheism. Not all of a type of any kind of person believes exactly the same, there tends to be major or minor variations. It seems a moot point, but one which must be constantly made.


The difference is that we know that Santa does not buy presents, as all presents given to a child can be accounted for (i.e. who gave them which present). If there were presents which could not be accounted for this would provide the same level of the unknown as god presents us with. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges, unless you know that a god does not exist with the same level of certainty that santa does not exist. It's a bad anaology which makes no point and serves to reenforce a conclusion already made rather than actually convincing anyone.

You are failing to understand that atheists don't believe in god like they don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy, there really isn't any difference. The only difference is that everybody stops believing in santa and the tooth fairy, but some people continue to believe in god into adulthood.

I understand that. But this only highlights your conclusion. Tell me why you don't believe in a god, what evidence is present to discount it? Do you have a validated alternative which can remove the requirement for a creator? It's very simple to negate a santa or tooth fairy through cause and effect. If you're going to say "there really isn't any difference" you should be able to account for everything which a god may have created. Otherwise your statement is subjective and unjustified.

If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

The whole point of you can't disprove a leprechaun/unicorn/fairy argument is to show the theist (when he inevitably says "well you can't DISPROVE god") that you can't disprove any number of made up things.

Yes I understand this as well and as I've said the leprechaun does not account for anything which is unknown, so why invoke something unrequired to attempt to illustrate your point, when it doesn't? If you have proof to show a god is not required, then use it. Otherwise your position simply becomes one of wishful thinking.

I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

Many atheists equate fairies with god because they consider them equally likely to be fiction.

Yes I knw what they consider them to be. But their considerations hold no value, unless you can justify what you believe to be true. Surely there's more to it than this?

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

Please give a valid reason why there needs to be an alternative to god?

That seems an odd question. If there is only one option, no alternatives are required.
Existence was either created (or the indreict product of) or uncreated. If created, then there is a creator. If uncreated everything is pure chance/random/eternal.

Until the eternal or chance can be proven to be a valid option as opposed to just an option, the requirement for a god cannot be removed. Conversely, on the incredibly low chance that god appears and is 'proven' to exist, this would remove the requirement for alternatives.

I have no problem with there being nothing out there in place of god, and nothing does not need validation because nothing has no properties and is not anything.

Nothing does not cause existence, nor does nothing entail eternity. You can have no problem with it, that's fine as a personal choice. But you need to rationalise it to others if you want it to be understandable or worthwhile. Just removing god on the basis of leprechauns is frail position to hold.

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

Our position is absolutely validated at every turn. Simple fact is, we don't believe because we have not been given sufficient evidence. That is reasonable and valid.

So your base assumption of knowing everthing is a valid one?

---

How ungodly of you.

Let's accuse anyone who is not an atheist to be a theist. The classic and predictable retort.

If only I could be arsed to reply to that point by point.

I'm going to bed in a minute so I'll just say one thing - what does god account for that is unknown?

We all know leprechauns account for the creation of the universe so you're right, they don't account for anything unknown.

Good night sir

[goodcake]

If only..........

[Blam!]

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

The burden of proof still belong to religious ones whom making the claims that there is all-powerful daddy in sky. The lack of evidence in the existence of god is relevant as to the lack of evidence in the existence of little, glowing female fairies with nipples.

2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

Try the bible' Genesis, Creationism and Intelligence Design - they elucidate nothing. Better explanations? Didn't you Christians contradict yourselves that your god is all-merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, in which the bible differs? It's natural for people oppose the abuse condoned by god accord the bible.

4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

You are deluded if you think science don't have potential. Science is still growing, goodcake. Science are capable of explaining things more than the bible possibility can.

Lifestyle with science doesn't sound bad. Hell, It's better lifestyle than lifestyle with limited perspective of our understanding the universe.

6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.

Does this refute your position? or only everyone who disagrees with you?

7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

The guy you are arguing with - he probably has point about delusion. Devil possession, for example. There aren't any demons began with - but the Vatican dimwits exorcised little girl and killed her as result. There's too many delusions like "power of prayer over modern medicine". This kind of idiocy had a lot of children abused and killed by religious dimwits.

There is many forms of Christianity, which proves Christians are contradict among themselves and forming new bleed of Christian stupidity like FLDS [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]. You could argue the practice of monogamy is very unethical, in which condoned by god in the bible. Therefore, you are contradicting the bible.

[downbeatplumb]

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so

Because the idea of gods is a relic of the past when people didnt know any better, when the oldest guy in town was twenty three and didnt know jack shit about anything real.

It is , in this day and age a laughable position to take.

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

So my not believing in something that has no evidence for it is an invalid position because I dont supply an alternative eh you do realise that that is a stupid thing to say dont you?

first i think that everything atributed to god came about by materialistic means, i.e. not supernaturally.

Second I didnt really have to come up with an alternative because that isnt how it works.

2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7440217.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Oh do keep up.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

Sigh...... do I really have to give you a biology, cosmology and physics lecture.

Evolution explains animal diversity, abiogenesis explains the beginning of life, (caveat, unproven by science but a better explanation than goddidit), Cosmology explains how the stars and planets form, psychology can explain the development of morals and oher social interactions and the list goes on everything that the bible states as fact has a better explanation.

Next

Not at all. We just have different questions now. If you have answers please outline these. Just because some events which can be accounted for by not invoking a god, atheists seem to think this refutes a god.

It does.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

Science at least has the capacity to quantify everything that exists. Even if at the moment they cant quite be done yet.
To say that anything is unquantifiable by science is exactly the same as saying it is non-existant or lazy.
In theory it is very difficult to check on the multiverse theory but I bet there are people working on how to do it.

And lets remember that most of early science was a search for god. But unlike other scientific exercises when they failed to find him they moved the goal posts because the alternative seemed too much for those primitive days.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

Science can measure and evaluate everything that exists.
Including emotions, Morality and feelings. (I used to work in a psychiatric Unit and they evalute these things as a matter of course).

If it cant be measured or studied it probably doesnt exist.

By openning yourself to non-existant things you live in a world of self delusion.

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

I dont have a 'faith' I believe the universe is godless because their is no evidence for a god.
You seem to think that believeing in something simply because you want it to be true is a valid position.
it is not it is fundamentally flawed.
I'm surprised you cant see that.

[goodcake]

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

The burden of proof still belong to religious ones whom making the claims that there is all-powerful daddy in sky. The lack of evidence in the existence of god is relevant as to the lack of evidence in the existence of little, glowing female fairies with nipples.

Not really the burden of proof is on either side to affirm their conclusions is correct based on either proving or disproving a god, or a natural alternative(s) In the absense of an alternative, you cannot remove god validly, you only remove it based on your personal preference to do so. Atheists may claim the burden of proof is on theists, but they will only receive 'amens' from other atheists by stating this. You may maintain that this burden lays elsewhere, but until atheists accept what proof they need to provide for their position to be considered valid, they will never reach any non-atheists. This is another reason why atheism is viewed as a structured belief, in that it's a shared view which only atheists consdier to be true/valid.

2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

Try the bible' Genesis, Creationism and Intelligence Design - they elucidate nothing. Better explanations? Didn't you Christians contradict yourselves that your god is all-merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, in which the bible differs? It's natural for people oppose the abuse condoned by god accord the bible.

You've misinterpretted what I believe. I don't have a defined god, I just have left the possibility of a god existing open. It's amazing that the vast majority of athiests think otherwise. I would guess you've based your view on a "us vs. them" mentality.

4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

You are deluded if you think science don't have potential. Science is still growing, goodcake. Science are capable of explaining things more than the bible possibility can.

You're in no position to state that apart from your personal beliefs in what science can do. It seems science has become a new religion (scientism), odd that people use it to refute god, which is a question it probably cannot, and is not looking to, answer.

Lifestyle with science doesn't sound bad. Hell, It's better lifestyle than lifestyle with limited perspective of our understanding the universe.

I've got no idea what you're saying here.

6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.

Does this refute your position? or only everyone who disagrees with you?

7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

The guy you are arguing with - he probably has point about delusion. Devil possession, for example. There aren't any demons began with - but the Vatican dimwits exorcised little girl and killed her as result. There's too many delusions like "power of prayer over modern medicine". This kind of idiocy had a lot of children abused and killed by religious dimwits.

So your view of delusion is anyone who is christian and to justify this, you take the exception to illustrate this? I have no idea how fundamentalists justify many things they do, whether it's in the name of religion or otherwise. Killing and abusing children is horrendous and these fuckers should be shot, however that these people use religion to justify their actions does not denigrate all religious people. You seem too eager to jump to conclusions using extreme examples.

There is many forms of Christianity, which proves Christians are contradict among themselves and forming new bleed of Christian stupidity like FLDS [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]. You could argue the practice of monogamy is very unethical, in which condoned by god in the bible. Therefore, you are contradicting the bible.

Yes there are contradicting views amongst all sects of religious groups and within non-religious groups. I'm not sure what this proves. Do you think there is one prevailing (religious or non-religious) group or individual who is correct? and if so, why?

[houseofcantor]

this is a great thread. I had a huge argument with my cultural diversity teacher over this very fact.

she's a christian of sorts and I'm an atheist, and she argued in class one day that one had to have religion behind a belief to make it a belief. I was really angry at that assertion, and argued that my beliefs were just as valid as hers, by all the principles of social justice that Community Services work by [which is what I'm studying].

She then argued that my non-faith based beliefs were less important on the whole...

I really feel like putting a complaint in about her...

Both Temple of Set and my infatuation with Gwyneth Paltrow are good for that little problem.

When it gets down to one-on-one like that, I consider it much better for the atheist to have some aces up his or her sleeve - like some functional idolatry - to counteract their dysfunctional idolatry.

---

cunt

What are you, twelve?

---

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

But Ace is 22, more interested in girls than god; he's got his priorities in order.

I'm 43 and completely in love with a girl that my common sense tells me to leave alone so I had to find some other way to fulfill the requirements of love - and oh yeah, it has requirements - so I made a theology around her and used it to falsify all theology.

Clever, huh? You don't want somebody else's god to do your thinking for you. If the Left-Hand path (like Set) ain't your cup of tea, being "open to the idea of god" is licence for their idea of god. Their idea of god sucks, dude.

[Anomalocaris]

I'm 43 and completely in love with a girl that my common sense tells me to leave alone so I had to find some other way to fulfill the requirements of love - and oh yeah, it has requirements - so I made a theology around her and used it to falsify all theology.

Clever, huh? You don't want somebody else's god to do your thinking for you. If the Left-Hand path (like Set) ain't your cup of tea, being "open to the idea of god" is licence for their idea of god. Their idea of god sucks, dude.

But you want to worship some cunt who would just dump you for a younger man?